You are replying to a comment about a specific case, which you know very little about, with a generalized categorizing statement.

What is your goal with this comment?

The goal is to highlight that legal judgments having more teeth is a pro of a cashless society. You shouldn’t be able to easily side step them.

What more do I need to know? If they don’t want the judgment used as a counter example, they shouldn’t bring it up as evidence for their point.

Legal does not mean just, nor does it mean moral.

Who decides what damages should be paid?

Who cares?

The point being made is the legal system sometimes chooses losers, whether the fault of the system or their own. We remove the escape hatch for those losers.

If you really want to argue that the legal system makes no mistakes then do it in front of the graves of those who were wrongly sentenced to death.

Where did I say that the legal system makes no mistakes? I don’t know about you but I live in a society that chose to have a legal framework that we all abide by even if it will never be perfect. Just like you can’t choose to not go to prison because you think the verdict is unjust, you shouldn’t be able to avoid a monetary judgment. If I think paying taxes is unjust, can I stop paying? No.

Judgements in the long-term are fine. Sometimes you need to eat right now, and having every cent scooped/locked up is too draconian. That's why "garnishing wages" is often done instead.